Investors Group Field | Winnipeg - Page 114

drew · #**2261** Posted **Feb 27, 2012, 8:28 PM**

Further to my above comment...

I wonder if this project had used the more expensive fixed-in-place tower cranes rather than the truck based cranes, if these delays would have been as severe?

Maybe someone with more crane knowledge can shed some light on this.

It often baffles me how many large scale projects in Winnipeg use the truck-cranes over tower cranes (stadium, recent UofM residences, UofW Science building, Waterfront drive condos, most recent Wellington Crescent condo tower etc.). Especially when you take a drive through Calgary, where anything larger than a single detached house is built with a tower crane.

Biff · #**2262** Posted **Feb 27, 2012, 8:38 PM**

I have the exact same question about tower cranes here in Winnipeg. I have heard something about the lack of qualified operators could make it more expensive here. In a place like Calgary where there are always so many cranes in operation it might make it easier to use one when building your garage.

rrskylar · #**2263** Posted **Feb 27, 2012, 9:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

Further to my above comment...

I wonder if this project had used the more expensive fixed-in-place tower cranes rather than the truck based cranes, if these delays would have been as severe?

Maybe someone with more crane knowledge can shed some light on this.

It often baffles me how many large scale projects in Winnipeg use the truck-cranes over tower cranes (stadium, recent UofM residences, UofW Science building, Waterfront drive condos, most recent Wellington Crescent condo tower etc.). Especially when you take a drive through Calgary, where anything larger than a single detached house is built with a tower crane.

I have thought the same thing for awhile now, probably along the lines of limited availability here.

drew · #**2264** Posted **Feb 27, 2012, 9:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

In a place like Calgary where there are always so many cranes in operation it might make it easier to use one when building your garage.

As long as it is at least an over-sized detached double garage... anything less than that is just a bit excessive..!

Crisis · #**2265** Posted **Feb 27, 2012, 10:08 PM**

I would think that tower cranes would be impractical, given the area covered by the stadium. It might have been possible to make due with 2 tower cranes, but would more likely need 4 cranes (or crane locations, if sequenced). Tower cranes are great, but have limited capacity at the end of the boom. Also the setup & dismantling of tower cranes is very expensive, so unless it can be left in place for a long time, the dollars don't pencil out versus using mobile cranes.

I'd be really surprised if it was a lack of availablility. There are numerous companies that offer tower cranes for rent.

Not wanting to be a downer, but based on the latest photos from the Bombers web site, it looks to me that having the stadium ready for the Banjo Bowl in September would be a remarkable achievement. Let's hope it happens sooner, but I wouldn't be betting money on that happening.

drew · #**2266** Posted **Feb 27, 2012, 10:21 PM**

^my insider info says September at the earliest for overall completion as well.

Not to be confused with playing football in an unfinished concrete and steel shell without any permanent concessions or interior finishes other than washrooms however... if you get my meaning.

bomberguy · #**2267** Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 12:03 AM**

Only in Winnipeg... smh

trebor204 · #**2268** Posted **Feb 28, 2012, 6:45 AM**

I went to the Climate Data Webpage, and check out wind speeds for Winnipeg. (and downloaded the data to a spreadsheet)

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc....Month=2&Day=1#

Using the Time period from Oct 1 to Feb 15

I calculated the number of times that the MAX WIND GUST was above 40 km/h.

2008/09 55 Times
2009/10 44 times
2010/11 57 times
2011/12 70 times

However I have no idea what the limits for wind speeds are for the cranes.
Second of all, the wind gusts could have occur during non-working hours.

Last December we had 18 days where the max guest was above 40 km/h
(average about 8 days)

trebor204 · #**2269** Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 1:11 AM**

Updated Pictures on Investors Group Field

Pictures taken Feb 28 & 29th.

Tower Crane · #**2270** Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 5:35 AM**

The rendering had a nice arch with cable supports to the roof, the photo shows ugly chunky steel supports. What's up?

trebor204 · #**2271** Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 5:58 AM**

I gather the steel supports are there temporary to support the canopy.
Once the arch is built, the arch will support the canopy with cables.

Here is a picture:
http://www.bluebombers.com/page/stadium-2012

The stadium has a new webpage containing some game day infomation

http://www.investorsgroupfield.ca/

PHILIP NBer · #**2272** Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 12:51 PM**

Can't wait to see this new stadium on television! I've been to McMahon in Calgary and it's a DUMP!!

Tower Crane · #**2273** Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 2:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trebor204

I gather the steel supports are there temporary to support the canopy.
Once the arch is built, the arch will support the canopy with cables.

Here is a picture:
http://www.bluebombers.com/page/stadium-2012

The stadium has a new webpage containing some game day infomation

http://www.investorsgroupfield.ca/

I know what the rendering shows, I'm saying that what is being erected looks a heck of a lot different and I don't think it's temporary.
I believe the design changed from the intended open web arch support and cables to what we are seeing getting installed. As I mentioned in a number of posts that structurally I did not think the rendering design would work.....I think I was right and we are seeing what does work.
To bad because the rendering looks awesome.

Biff · #**2274** Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 4:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

^my insider info says September at the earliest for overall completion as well.

Not to be confused with playing football in an unfinished concrete and steel shell without any permanent concessions or interior finishes other than washrooms however... if you get my meaning.

If my say counted (which it doesn't), my suggestion would be to scrap the entire 2012 season at the new stadium and play 2012 at Canad Inns. This way they can just concentrate on building the best stadium they can and give it to the Bombers in sparkling, shiny new condition with everything working and tested at the beginning of the 2013 season. This will also not cause any distractions to the Bombers in what i feel will be an already challenging season team wise this year. I feel that moving stadiums halfway through the season will be a huge distraction, especially if they are forced to extend the occupancy date by any more games.

Just do it right. Besides, what a let down as a paying customer would it be to come to a partially finished stadium -no landscaping, incomplete concessions etc.

Biff · #**2275** Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 7:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

The canopy/roof looks downright scary considering how it will be supported.

Blue Bomber site photo

I know Drew has already spoken on the engineering portion of the roof, but i was just by there at lunch and that arch is freaking gigantic. When you see the steel involved in that arch you won't be worried about the roof coming down.

It is one serious banana........unfortunately it does not look as elegant as the rendering (slender arch with cable stay like supports) - more like a rail bridge. Impressive none the less.

drew · #**2276** Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tower Crane

I know what the rendering shows, I'm saying that what is being erected looks a heck of a lot different and I don't think it's temporary.
I believe the design changed from the intended open web arch support and cables to what we are seeing getting installed. As I mentioned in a number of posts that structurally I did not think the rendering design would work.....I think I was right and we are seeing what does work.
To bad because the rendering looks awesome.

I am not sure how you figure they would ever come the conclusion that they need to keep all those site line destroying columns to keep the roof up.

That arch will be supporting those roof joists. Those columns are temporary. I don't and haven't worked at any capacity on this project, but I'll put it this way:

If those temporary columns somehow become "permanent", I will eat this website. Not sure how that can be accomplished, but that is my end of the bargain.

rypinion · #**2277** Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

I am not sure how you figure they would ever come the conclusion that they need to keep all those site line destroying columns to keep the roof up.

That arch will be supporting those roof joists. Those columns are temporary. I don't and haven't worked at any capacity on this project, but I'll put it this way:

If those temporary columns somehow become "permanent", I will eat this website. Not sure how that can be accomplished, but that is my end of the bargain.

I think he's talking about the arch itself, its currently shaping up to look quite a bit different from the rendering, as Biff also mentions.

drew · #**2278** Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 11:05 PM**

^ well in any event my offer still stands.

We all have to remember that renders are high on dreams and short on reality, and never involve the people actually responsible to make these things stand up. Cables would likely never had worked to keep that roof rigid enough.

alittle1 · #**2279** Posted **Mar 2, 2012, 3:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crisis

Not wanting to be a downer, but based on the latest photos from the Bombers web site, it looks to me that having the stadium ready for the Banjo Bowl in September would be a remarkable achievement. Let's hope it happens sooner, but I wouldn't be betting money on that happening.

You first have to realize that the University of Manitoba is a pro-Agriculture University, the hay and grain crops have to be cut BEFORE the cars can park on the fields. Knowing this, you will also understand that there is a ban on street parking within two kilometers of the new football site.

In short, the plan of putting a football stadium in this location was not well thought out and the plans are still seat-of-the-pants renderings. Heaven only knows, if those arches can still be held up with hot air instead of those support columns. I rest my case.

rrskylar · #**2280** Posted **Mar 2, 2012, 5:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rypinion

I think he's talking about the arch itself, its currently shaping up to look quite a bit different from the rendering, as Biff also mentions.

In agreement here, the arch in the rendering is way over the canopy with cables from the arch supporting the canopy, now the arch looks almost attached to the canopy.

The progress on the arch and canopy seems to have ground to a halt as the progress now is about the same as it was a month ago leading me to speculate there is a design snafu of some sort.

I think most in here are smart enough to realize the columns are temporary but removing them may have an unexpected result.